«Symposion» and «Philanthropia» in Plutarch - Bad Request ...

James T. ChlupWhen he entertained at table, his invited guests were for the most part plebeiansand men of the people, and the simplicity of the repast was combined with aneatness and good cheer which gave more pleasure than lavish expenditure.(3.2)If Plutarch disapproved of Crassus, then this passage is unique in thatthe author appears to express approval of one aspect of his subject’s character 5 .Symposia comprise three elements: the meal (both food and drink), the guests,and the conversation or entertainment; Plutarch expeditiously identifies allthree in this sentence. Crassus appears to subscribe to the maxim of quality overquantity: the success of his dinner parties is attributed to the entertainment (i.e.,intelligent conversation) rather than the amount of food or drink provided 6 .The limited amount of wine ensures that the conversation is not adverselyaffected 7 . Given the tradition of Crassus as (one of ) Rome’s wealthiestcitizen(s), the placement of this passage early in the Life establishes Crassus asa complex persona, since his tremendous wealth, the process by which he cameto acquire it Plutarch begins to describe in the previous chapter (see below, p.184), does not automatically mean that he enjoys excessive indulgences. Thatis, one might expect Plutarch to explain how Crassus became wealthy, thenexplore how he uses his wealth for personal profit. Such an approach wouldunderline effectively Crassus’ dominant negative character trait of philoploutia.Rather, Crassus appears to be the opposite sort of person: he scolds those whospend money on trivialities, dinner parties included, although his criticism ofothers is not contained in this Life 8 . His aversion to excessive expenditureis revealed by his treatment of his philosopher-companion Alexander, whowas given a cloak for travelling only to have to return it upon the journey’scompletion (3.8) 9 .The passage above introduces a section in which Plutarch cataloguesCrassus’ positive attributes: his desire to be an effective public speaker; hiswillingness to plead cases when those presumably more talented than he –Pompey, Caesar and Cicero – are unwilling to serve as advocate; his warmgreeting towards those he meets in public, especially plebeians; and his stronginterest in history and philosophy (3.3-8). These attributes extend from, andfeed back into, Crassus’ effective execution of his role as symposiarch. The firstand last of these – his desire to be an eloquent advocate and his historical and5F. Titchener, 1999, p. 496.6F. Titchener, 1999, p. 496: “a certain panache vis-à-vis banquet arranging was definitelya mark in someone’s favor, but the main attraction in Plutarch’s view should be companionshipand conversation”.7And his guests are not corrupted, as Plutarch writes that Catiline did (Cic. 10.5).8Pompey and Crassus criticise Lucullus for his extravagance (Luc. 38.5; Plutarch describesLucullus’ dinner parties at 41). Both R. Flacelière, 1972, p. 302 and M. G. Bertinelli, 1993,p. 330 note the sharp differences between Crassus and Lucullus in this respect.9Including an interjection from Plutarch or an indirect quotation from one of his sources:“Alas the patience of this unfortunate man, for his philosophy did not regard poverty as anindifferent condition”.182